![09:20] Cpc G. Surya Narayanan Mhc Advt: Quote provision for the situation:](https://www.sekarreporter.com/wp-content/themes/hueman/assets/front/img/thumb-medium-empty.png)
Follow:
- Next story sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1604511679936884738?t=QQbwqbkxLm_CeB7sZV4foA&s=08 [12/18, 21:49] sekarreporter1: *GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT* *M. Fredrick Monika Vs. The Inspector General of Registration & 2 Ors.* W.P. No. 32582 of 2022 Dated: 05.12.2022 *HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBRAMANIAN* dismissed the Writ Petition in the matter relating to *“Marriage – Solemnized – Valid”*, and further observed and held as follows:
- Previous story 2.It is the case of the petitioner that her marriage with the 3rd respondent was solemnized on 12.10.2022 without her consent in the 2nd respondent Church therefore, the same should not be registered. I do not think such a mandamus could be issued. Once the marriage is solemnized, de hors registration, is by itself valid. It can be dissolved only by a decree of Court. The Registration by itself does not add to the sanctity of the marriage, which according to the petitioner was done without her consent. 3.Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court or the appropriate forum seeking a declaration that the marriage is invalid. No costs. 05.12.2022 kkn Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. KKN To:- 1.The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai – 28. W.P.No.32582 of 2022 05.12.2022. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Pandian For Respondents : Mr.M.Muthusamy Government Advocate for R1 O R D E R The prayer in the Writ Petition reads as follows:directing the 1st respondent not to register the marriage which was solemnized on 12.11.2022 before the 2nd respondent church without the petitioner’s consent to the 3rd respondent by considering the petitioner’s representation dated 28.10.2022 and dispose of the same within the time limit that may be stipulated.
Recent Posts
- “We are, therefore, inclined to set aside the order of the First Appellate Authority and direct the First Appellate Authority to treat the delay as condoned, and examine and pass orders on merits. Writ appeal stands allowed. There will be no order as to costs.” https://wwwsekarreporter.wordpress.com/mr-k-r-shriram-chief-justice-and-mr-justice-mohammed-shaffiqmr-justice-mohammed-shaffiq/#:~:text=We%20are%2C%20therefore,as%20to%20costs.
- கே.சந்துரு மேனாள் நீதிபதி சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்றம் நீதிபதி டாக்டர் மரியா கிளீட் அளித்துள்ள பரபரப்பான தீர்ப்பு
- MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR A.S.No.586 of 2025 and CMP.No.10580 of 2025 Prema … Appellant
- நீதிபதி திரு சத்யநாராயண பிரசாத் அவர்கள் முன்னிலையில் விசாரணைக்கு வந்தது. மனுதாரர் மற்றும் சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்ற மூத்த வழக்கறிஞர் துரைசாமியின் சார்பில், வழக்கறிஞர் வி. இளங்கோவன் ஆஜரானார். அரசு
- Case quashed against Big boss darsan advocate Thenmoli
More
Recent Posts
- “We are, therefore, inclined to set aside the order of the First Appellate Authority and direct the First Appellate Authority to treat the delay as condoned, and examine and pass orders on merits. Writ appeal stands allowed. There will be no order as to costs.” https://wwwsekarreporter.wordpress.com/mr-k-r-shriram-chief-justice-and-mr-justice-mohammed-shaffiqmr-justice-mohammed-shaffiq/#:~:text=We%20are%2C%20therefore,as%20to%20costs.
- கே.சந்துரு மேனாள் நீதிபதி சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்றம் நீதிபதி டாக்டர் மரியா கிளீட் அளித்துள்ள பரபரப்பான தீர்ப்பு
- MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR A.S.No.586 of 2025 and CMP.No.10580 of 2025 Prema … Appellant
- நீதிபதி திரு சத்யநாராயண பிரசாத் அவர்கள் முன்னிலையில் விசாரணைக்கு வந்தது. மனுதாரர் மற்றும் சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்ற மூத்த வழக்கறிஞர் துரைசாமியின் சார்பில், வழக்கறிஞர் வி. இளங்கோவன் ஆஜரானார். அரசு
- Case quashed against Big boss darsan advocate Thenmoli
